HM, Re: Given Intel's resources, they should be way ahead, but somehow, they are not. Something is amiss. My guess is poor management. Intel has become a bit top heavy. I have no doubt Intel has quality engineers, probably the finest, but management is screwing things up by making bad choices or having trouble planning and executing to plans. They better get their act together soon.
In terms of processor competitiveness, I am very confused with Intel's roadmap choices. It seems to me that the "Netburst" core is too complex, requiring too many engineers, too long of a schedule, and more areas where things could go wrong. I used to think that it was an asset for Intel to use their mass to develop huge and brute-forced cores that their competitors couldn't keep up with, but now I realize that this only managed to slam Intel against the power wall first. It might have seemed like a good idea on paper, but I think Intel needs to switch to mobile cores (i.e. Dothan derived) and optimize them for the desktop (i.e. 800MHz FSB, multithreading, transistors optimized for performance over low power, etc). They might end up with a 65W TDP processor, but so what!? It would be half the power of the "Netburst" equivalent, and probably much better performing, too. If Intel integrated a memory controller on the die in addition to the above, they would run circles around "Hammer" and have lower power besides. Then all they would have to solve is the "Megahurts Sells" problem, but given their success with Centrino, I think they can do it.
Then again, that's what I would do if I were in charge. Too bad I'm not. :-/
